Content area
Abstract
Elizabethan history plays, their authors and their audiences are usually thought of as politically orthodox in their ideas about kings and commoners, and in their condemnation of all forms of rebellion. This study of comic scenes and characters in the history plays, however, suggests that political attitudes among playwrights and their audiences were more complex and heterogeneous than is usually assumed. Some of the plays discussed are Edward II, Edward III, Edward IV, The Famous Victories of Henry V, Jack Straw, Perkin Warbeck, Sir John Oldcastle, Sir Thomas More, When You See Me, You Know Me, If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody, The Shoemakers' Holiday, Woodstock, the Henry VI plays, King John, Richard II and Henry V.
A comparison of similar scenes in these plays shows that common rebels are often satirized, a use of comedy which suggests orthodox condemnation of rebellion. Yet satire is complicated by many comic moments that draw us into sympathy with the rebels and their plans, while English kings--including Shakespeare's Henry VI and Richard II--are as frequently the butts of mockery as their erring subjects. Popular comic motifs such as feasting and the king in disguise seem in some plays to portray an ideal relationship between king and commoner in a "merry England"; yet ironies often undermine this apparently conservative celebration of the monarchy, and "festive comedy" can include surprisingly dark moments. A similarly dark comedy draws us into an unorthodox sympathy with bad rulers and tyrants, even while we condemn their actions. And occasionally, both rulers and subjects show a lawlessness and a comic rebelliousness which we are encouraged to celebrate rather than condemn. Comedy in the history plays is a two-edged tool: it is used to define the idea of an ideal England and to subvert it, to celebrate English kings and subjects and to satirize them, to reassure an English audience and to disturb them.
